Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Significance of D-Day
Options
-
22-11-2012 5:40pm#1If the D-Day landings had not been planned, what would've happened? Considering the Russians were driving the Germans back on the Eastern Front, had the war in Europe been lost already? Would we have just seen a more prolonged bloody conflict on the eastern front, ending with an eventual Soviet victory?
How significant was it?
They are (rightly) celebrated in Western culture and I don't want to take away from its importance and the sacrifice made by all those who lost their lives. But has it taken on an over-significance? I read in another thread here someone saying that the D-Day invasions were what won the war for the Allies...Surely Germany's capitulation in Stalingrad and the Eastern Front was more important?0
Comments
-
well without the planning it would ve been truely "make it up as you go along"
in reality it probably prevented more states falling under communist influence0 -
operation Bagration did not start until after D-day, I think Stalin was still concerned that he (The red Army) really might be left fighting the Wehrmacht on his own.
The anglo allies were already bottled up in italy, Norway seems (now) out of the question, without D-day in the form it took, its possible the Wehrmacht could have turned all their attention to the Red Army, in 1944 The Luftwaffe was still an effective force in the middle of 1944, and daylight bombing was a bloody campaign for the USAAC, maybe the Luftwaffe would have held off long enough for the Jet interceptors and newer jets to come online completely outclassing the ability of the piston fighter escorts to defend the bombers, meanwhile an enlarged? eastern front army could have possibly fought the red Army to a stalemate? or turned things around, the germans weren't above using captured Soviet equipment (T-34's, and 76mm anti tank weapons and ammunition from captured stocks).
Or maybe they would have lost against the red army and all of continental western Europe would have been open to Stalin?
I think Stalingrad was almost allowed to happen, the German leadership needed to put fear into ordinary german citizens to get "total war" and to go all out on a war footing, maybe they let it get away from them getting bogged down in a slugging match in an urban area, while allowing the red Army to rebuild and out manoever them?
So I say D-day was very significant (the largest amphibious landings ever, in history), on the basis the Red Army held back or was held back to see how it would go before launching their own offensive on the eastern front says a lot to me.
If it was never planned as in never planned to occur, almost like saying if there was no western front, the Germans would have access to resources, men and war material that they could have used against the Soviet armies, this may have given them a decisive edge.0 -
You have to remember that Stalin was constantly badgering the western allies to open the 'second front'. Indeed Communists in Britain agitated for it constantly. 'Second front now' was a common piece of graffiti.
Stalin wanted it in 1942 or 1943. That would seem to indicate that the Soviets were by no means sure they could defeat the Axis on it's own. Without the pressure from west it's entirely possible that the Soviets would never have overwhelmed the Germans. If the D-day landings failed the likelyhood of it been repeated in 1944 is limited. This may well have changed the balance of power completely.0 -
Stalin wanted it in 1942 or 1943. That would seem to indicate that the Soviets were by no means sure they could defeat the Axis on it's own. Without the pressure from west it's entirely possible that the Soviets would never have overwhelmed the Germans. If the D-day landings failed the likelyhood of it been repeated in 1944 is limited. This may well have changed the balance of power completely.
No invasion of Western Europe could have started without German air power seriously deteriorated, The fight against the luftwaffe only started in earnest with the arrival of the Americans I think, that only happened when the USAAC became combat operational in 1943, something just over a year before D-Day.
The Soviets (Uncle Joe) in particular may have pushed for the opening of a second front for his own ulterior motives, and in some regards that front had been in existence since the war started and since the British were fighting in North Africa.
The German defeat at El Alamein occured before any other major defeats by the Soviets.
The Soviets seemed to be well informed of the western allies abilities otherwise, indeed before the Soviets became involved in fighting at all, At that stage Stalin had hoped the British and Germans would weaken each other, presumably so he could order the red armies west? demanding a second front occur before it was possible, maybe he wanted to eliminate the western allies as a threat, hoping the Germans would finish them off, before he finished the Germans off?0 -
No invasion of Western Europe could have started without German air power seriously deteriorated, The fight against the luftwaffe only started in earnest with the arrival of the Americans I think, that only happened when the USAAC became combat operational in 1943, something just over a year before D-Day.
Technically the Allies could have launched an invasion in 1943 or even late 1942 but it would have been predominantly a British force with only a couple of token American divisions. German airpower in the west was severely depleted by the Battle of Britain and never really recovered, even 3 years later. However, casualties would have been far, far, far higher than when they eventually did land in 1944. In all probability they would have begun to approach Eastern Front casualty figures. You have to remember that casualties (in the military sense) reached Eastern Front figures during the early days of the Normandy fighting. Move the invasion back even a year and the Allies face a much more effective German army and in all likelihood, far higher casualties.The Soviets (Uncle Joe) in particular may have pushed for the opening of a second front for his own ulterior motives, and in some regards that front had been in existence since the war started and since the British were fighting in North Africa.
The German defeat at El Alamein occured before any other major defeats by the Soviets.
The fight in North Africa had no real bearing on the eventual outcome of the war other than tying up German troops. For the Germans it was a disaster as it meant having to come to the aid of the Italians and divert vital numbers of troops from the invasion of Russia. In the case of the British it was only location they could actually engage the Germans on the ground and was more a vanity project than anything else. El Alamein had no outcome on the course of the war other than a psycological boost that the Germans could actually be defeated.The Soviets seemed to be well informed of the western allies abilities otherwise, indeed before the Soviets became involved in fighting at all, At that stage Stalin had hoped the British and Germans would weaken each other, presumably so he could order the red armies west? demanding a second front occur before it was possible, maybe he wanted to eliminate the western allies as a threat, hoping the Germans would finish them off, before he finished the Germans off?
Soviet intelligence was clearly lacking on the western Allies, look how badly they miscalcuated the ability of the French and the British to hold off the Germans in 1940. The whole Soviet war plan was based on a long drawn out fight on the Western front allowing Stalin time to build up his forces.
With the entry of the United States into the war any hope the Germans had of 'eliminating the Western Allies' was long gone (in fact I'd argue Germany had lost the war as early as late 1941).0 -
Advertisement
-
HavingCrack wrote: »No invasion of Western Europe could have started without German air power seriously deteriorated, The fight against the luftwaffe only started in earnest with the arrival of the Americans I think, that only happened when the USAAC became combat operational in 1943, something just over a year before D-Day.
Technically the Allies could have launched an invasion in 1943 or even late 1942 but it would have been predominantly a British force with only a couple of token American divisions. German airpower in the west was severely depleted by the Battle of Britain and never really recovered, even 3 years later. However, casualties would have been far, far, far higher than when they eventually did land in 1944. In all probability they would have begun to approach Eastern Front casualty figures. You have to remember that casualties (in the military sense) reached Eastern Front figures during the early days of the Normandy fighting. Move the invasion back even a year and the Allies face a much more effective German army and in all likelihood, far higher casualties.The Soviets (Uncle Joe) in particular may have pushed for the opening of a second front for his own ulterior motives, and in some regards that front had been in existence since the war started and since the British were fighting in North Africa.
The German defeat at El Alamein occured before any other major defeats by the Soviets.
The fight in North Africa had no real bearing on the eventual outcome of the war other than tying up German troops. For the Germans it was a disaster as it meant having to come to the aid of the Italians and divert vital numbers of troops from the invasion of Russia. In the case of the British it was only location they could actually engage the Germans on the ground and was more a vanity project than anything else. El Alamein had no outcome on the course of the war other than a psycological boost that the Germans could actually be defeated.
Soviet intelligence was clearly lacking on the western Allies, look how badly they miscalcuated the ability of the French and the British to hold off the Germans in 1940. The whole Soviet war plan was based on a long drawn out fight on the Western front allowing Stalin time to build up his forces.
With the entry of the United States into the war any hope the Germans had of 'eliminating the Western Allies' was long gone (in fact I'd argue Germany had lost the war as early as late 1941).
I dont believe 1942 would have been possible, nor 1943. What US forces had arrived,there was not a sufficient build up, their wasn't a trained core or a clearly defined way to carry out the war, the Germans were still having successes and it wasn't even certain if Russia could hold out. The western allies weren't prepared if possible to accept the losses that happened on the Eastern front, not sure what the numbers were but I have read the numbers of casualties after D-day exceeded those of the western front in the first world war.
I dissagree that North Africa had no bearing on the war, all aspects of the war had a bearing on the outcome, if it was only a pyschological boost or a means to tie down sufficient number of enemy troops then that would have a significant bearing on the outcome.
But had the Afrika Corps been unstopped, then they could have held control of The Suez and middle east oil fields (in British hands at the time), which was also later one supply route to Russia. All of these things are significant.
Its true, the Italians (mussolini, I think he wanted an italian empire? and wanted to put himself up there with the other great leaders of empire?) created difficulties for their Nazi Allies,
in particular in the Balkans where Hitler had wanted to create reluctant allies instead of enemies, but italy forced Germany at the time to waste troops and equipment to bale them out.
If germany had focused on North Afrika instead of Russia history might have taken a different course and Great britain may have had to sue for peace, so I think it is important what happened there.
As for what Stalin expected of the Germans, french and British, most expected a repeat of the first world war, only the germans had other plans and even they were suprised by their success and the collapse of their enemies. It wouldnt suprise me if the Russians were aware of the Germans plans but knowing whether something will come to pass in the future in a war is a large uncertainty.Even if the information was available for the invasion of France, as an example at the start of the invasion of the soviet union, Stalin refused to believe it was underway, it doesnt mean the information wasnt available.
Also the arrival of the US didnt herald the end of the war, they still had to get organisational and operational experience, they were not on par with the Germans experience, kasserine pass being an example of that.
That war was won by a number of means, technical, logistical and how thats was managed and tied to the operational requirements.
The Afrika Corps lost in North Africa because of logistics and management, Germany lost because it relied on quick victories and had spread itself thinly against too many enemies, because technically it didnt have the same preparation (no large bombers) as its enemies or manage how they planned their overall strategy, and an invasion of the largest country in world on a timeline based on ideology not military necessity.
The outcomes of battles at the start are uncertain, how a war will end when an enemy seems unstoppable less so I imagine.
The whole War was a disaster0 -
...The Luftwaffe was still an effective force in the middle of 1944, and daylight bombing was a bloody campaign for the USAAC...HavingCrack wrote: »...German airpower in the west was severely depleted by the Battle of Britain and never really recovered, even 3 years later. ....
I'm with Merch on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production
There were still a strong force up to the start of 1945. Well until Operation Bodenplatte on 1st January 1945. Which was their greatest loss in a single day during the war.The Luftwaffe destroyed 150 Allied aircraft and damaged 111 more.
Their attack resulted in 145 wounded and 46 killed allied personnel (only
6 Allied pilots were killed in ombat)
The Luftwaffe losses were 270 aircraft destroyed and 40 damaged and 260 pilots lost...January 1945 1,427 single engine fighters, 35 twin engine fighters and 808 night fighters were listed as serviceable by the Luftwaffe (Source The Last Year Of The Luftwaffe by Alfred Price) This book is quite dated so there may be a discrepency in the figures.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=1609440 -
If the D-Day landings had not been planned, what would've happened? Considering the Russians were driving the Germans back on the Eastern Front, had the war in Europe been lost already? Would we have just seen a more prolonged bloody conflict on the eastern front, ending with an eventual Soviet victory?
How significant was it?
They are (rightly) celebrated in Western culture and I don't want to take away from its importance and the sacrifice made by all those who lost their lives. But has it taken on an over-significance? I read in another thread here someone saying that the D-Day invasions were what won the war for the Allies...Surely Germany's capitulation in Stalingrad and the Eastern Front was more important?
If D-day did not occur in any form, then its possible Germany may have held off long enough to defeat or deliver some form of military defeat to one of the major powers of the Allies that would deter them sufficiently to want to end the war (at least temporarily). No one really knows though, the Russians may not have felt the Germans were weak enough to contimue to fight them on their own and may even be able to turn the war around against them. We will never really know what would have come to pass if it had not gone ahead.
Also Germany did not capitulate in Stalingrad, the 6th Army was defeated and captured, they The Germans still had victories after that.
Fortunately for history it didnt last or we wouldnt be here.0 -
I'm with Merch on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production
There were still a strong force up to the start of 1945. Well until Operation Bodenplatte on 1st January 1945. Which was their greatest loss in a single day during the war.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=160944
I had read somewhere about numbers of aircraft in production before and that it increased towards the end of the war but could not locate it again, I never really thought to look up wiki,
The link to another wiki page under that suggests 20 thousand 109's and 190's alone in 1944 not including ground attack or reconnaissance versions.
They could not maintain the war based on material replacement and the human cost compared to their enemies.
I dont believe any one of the allies could have defeated Germany alone or even paired with another of the existing main powers, if one had been knocked out (the longer the war went on the less likely this was) or if one power had never participated then I think its possible the war would have taken a different turn.
While I dont think the Russians had the same support in equipment at the end of the war as they did early-middle on from the US and Britain, they still relied on the US for certain supplies and finished goods, boots, radios, aircraft tanks, jeeps and trucks, all essential equipment.
Of course, a lot of this here and above are just my opinions (some figures supplied by Bostonb)
nite all0 -
I'm with Merch on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production
There were still a strong force up to the start of 1945. Well until Operation Bodenplatte on 1st January 1945. Which was their greatest loss in a single day during the war.
I'm with you and Merch on that (more or less). The Jagdwaffe had rebuilt all its losses by early 1941 and the introduction of the BF109F and especially the FW190A gave it a qualitative advantage over the British until well into 1943. They could afford to have only JG2 and JG26 to cover France and Belgium and JG1 to cover Holland and North Germany and JG27 in North Africa while almost everything else was in the USSR.
When the British and Canadians had their trial run at Dieppe in 1942 the Germans absolutely eviscerated them, especially in the air.
Bodenplatte was a gigantic mess-up and can't be particularly blamed on the pilots. Galland's idea was to preserve pilots, planes and fuel for one huge strike against the USAAF bombers which would in theory end that threat long enough for the Jagdwaffe to be assigned to other theatres. After the Fighter pilots mutiny in late 1944 Galland was sacked and the target was changed by the High Command to allied airfields in Holland and Belgium, pilots who were used to attacking high-level bombers were suddenly tasked with being ground-attack pilots. To make matters worse, before the attack the Germans didn't even warn their own army about the attack and unaccustomed to seeing so many planes, dozens of german fighters were shot down by their own flak units before they even crossed the front line. Then they had to run the gauntlet of allied flak before reaching their targets.
Regarding the number of planes the germans had in service, the number may be high but they rarely had enough fuel to send up complete formations.
Also the number of experienced pilots they had left by that stage was pretty low. I posted a review of a book called Green Hearts on a thread here a while ago, its about the history of III Gruppe of JG54 from August 1944 to May 1945 and each staffel would be composed of 3 or 4 old hands with 7 or 8 new pilots and what would happen is the old hands would score a few kills but an equal number of the new pilots would be shot down. It was fairly chilling seeing page after page of photos of pilots who were killed after only 1 or 2 missions and that was just a microcosm of what was going on throughout the Jagdwaffe in 19450 -
Advertisement
-
I had originally written a reply but was interrupted by a friend with a girlfriend problem. Such are the complications of real life versus the fun stuff.
My own opinion of the Luftwaffe was that they were overrated. They were good but not that good. The RAF beat them in the Battle of Britain. That cannot be denied. But there's more, the RAF operated more or less uncontested over France in '41 and '42. Yes sure much of the RAF operations were pointless and and wasteful of their precious pilots. But they kept up the pressure.
Another example is Malta, somehow or other the mighty Luftwaffe couldn't defeat the pitiful defenders of Malta even though they were only sixty miles away in Sicily. In flying terms that's minutes. Then there's North Africa. The British dominated the air war in the desert even before the American arrived. Then there's northern Europe the Americans when they weren't shooting down Brits very rapidly achieved air superiority. Also there's Russia but some of the best fighters of the war were Russian. The La5 and La7 were as good as any aircraft in any inventory. Their pilots were good too.
Plus of course there were the losses. Sure we all know the about the Luftwaffe experten. But unlike the allies they didn't have the luxury of a long training course. BlaasForRafa is right many of the young pilots were little better than cannon fodder.
I'm a pilot myself and when I find myself operating in the same airspace as other aircraft and I cannot see them in spite of radar warning and the fact they are not camouflaged. I can see how difficult it is. The good pilots are very good indeed. The Luftwaffe simply lost too many of them too early. Quality of pilots and training and the time spent on that training is absolutely vital.
To get back to the original question, yes D-day was needed. It had to happen and in all seriousness it helped the Soviets. Indeed the mere threat of it helped the Soviets. I do wonder though that if it failed whether it would have changed much. Maybe all of Germany would have eventually fallen to Stalin but somehow I don't think much of Western Europe including France would have gone that way. It really wasn't an ambition of Stalin.
It's easy to look back in hindsight and attribute motivations for the Stalin and the USSR but realistically mostly they wanted a buffer between the motivations of the countries like Germany and latterly Americans even if in the real world the Americans had no such ambitions.0 -
You're not really comparing like with like. BOB was a Air 2 Air Battle and the RAF was a vastly better prepared, probably ideally prepared for that battle than is generally known. Their whole system had been designed over many years to fight exactly that battle. On the flip side it was the exact kind of battle the Luftwaffe wasn't designed for. That's before you consider the poor tactical and strategic errors. Even then it was a close run thing. Malta was a different kind of battle entirely. Most of the failure there was a failure to defeat the Convoys and Submarines, supplying the Island.
The D-Day landings, or indeed the War in Europe certainly help to end the war quicker. Could Germany have fought Russia to a standstill in the east if left alone in the west. I'd say its possible.0 -
The D-Day landings, or indeed the War in Europe certainly help to end the war quicker. Could Germany have fought Russia to a standstill in the east if left alone in the west. I'd say its possible.
I don't think Germany had the capacity to fight Russia to a standstill by 1943 let alone 1944. Operation Bagration would have happened regardless of D-Day. The Germans simply didn't have enough troops or armour to hold back the Soviet offensives, especially after Kursk.
You also have to remember that the Western Allies are already in Italy and battering (albeit very, very slowly) their way up the peninnsula. If D-Day fails what's the situation there? There were also the landings in southern France, do these still occur if D-Day fails?0 -
I said I was mainly thinking if the was no major land conflict in the west. While certainly the argument about the weight in numbers is valid, its a little too sweeping as Germany had the ability to fight when vastly outnumbered, even late into the war. Battle of Budziszyn, April 1945 for example. Consider then if they could have concentrated all their resources on one front instead of many.
Often in battles/wars its often not decisive event that turns the tides but the death of a thousand paper cuts. Bleeding resources away so when major battle occur one side is weaker than the other.0 -
Highly significant is the short answer.
The economics of the war meant Germany would inevitably be defeated by early to mid 1946 - while there were some 'headline' increases in aircraft, tank and artillery production this was always at the expense of ammunition production (there was only so much steel to go around). The ammunition supply was always in crisis from about 1942 onwards - steel and other metals were costantly swapped from artillery to small arms to bombs etc depending on which supply was the most critical.
Also by early 1944 with the Foggia Airfields firmly in Allied control, southern Germany, the Danube, Vienna and (perhaps most importantly) the Ploesti Oilfields came within range of the USAF and RAF, further adding to the Reich's economic problems.
If D-Day had not gone ahead or gone ahead and failed, it's likely the USSR would have still achieved the final victory except they would have dominated a much greater area of the Continent. It's difficult to conceive a scenario where the Germans could have or would have won - the Allies were already committed to total victory and outright surrender.
Even if the July plot had succeeded it wouldn't have led to the war ending - the plotters were not going to surrender unconditionally.
The Germans were essentially fecked when they launched Barbarossa and didn't sue for peace in the autumn.
A more interesting 'what-if' might be, what if D-Day had gone ahead in 1943 (as suggested by Marshall and Rooseveldt) and failed, as it likely would have? Would that have led to the Allies following the British Meditteranean strategy and slogging their way up through Italy and the Balkans?
Who knows?0 -
The real significance of D Day is that it allowed the western allies to get a foothold in Europe before the Russians gained all of Germany and more.
The actual war had been decided an entire year before, in Russia and it was only a matter of time before a German defeat.
Had the western allies not invaded France at all, Russia would have beaten the Germans all the way across Europe.0 -
D Day or no Day, the eventual outcome would have been the same, an Allied victory.
The D Day landings arguably shortened the war, but imo there's no way that Germany would have won the war had they repelled the D Day landings. Doing so would simply have prolonged the war.
Russia and Stalin was operating on a policy that if they lost a million and Germany lost a million, German losses were greater as Russia had greater resources of soldiers in reserve.
Add that to the almost endless supply of resources that America brought to the war and its difficult to envisage anything other than an Allied victory. Germany's only hope would have been to hang on till they could have invented something with similar capabilities to an atom bomb.0 -
D Day or no Day, the eventual outcome would have been the same, an Allied victory.
The D Day landings arguably shortened the war, but imo there's no way that Germany would have won the war had they repelled the D Day landings. Doing so would simply have prolonged the war.
Russia and Stalin was operating on a policy that if they lost a million and Germany lost a million, German losses were greater as Russia had greater resources of soldiers in reserve.
Add that to the almost endless supply of resources that America brought to the war and its difficult to envisage anything other than an Allied victory. Germany's only hope would have been to hang on till they could have invented something with similar capabilities to an atom bomb.
Russia's problem was that it was losing twice or three times the number of men Germany was. If D-Day hadn't have happened, Germany would have had more resources on the eastern front and Russia's losses would have been even higher.
I'm not saying the outcome would have changed in the slightest, but it would have taken Russia a lot longer to reach Berlin and if the German's had of retreated all the way back to Paris then the Russian's would probably have carried on chasing them.
It would have made for a very very interesting cold war.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Russia's problem was that it was losing twice or three times the number of men Germany was. If D-Day hadn't have happened, Germany would have had more resources on the eastern front and Russia's losses would have been even higher.
I'm not saying the outcome would have changed in the slightest, but it would have taken Russia a lot longer to reach Berlin and if the German's had of retreated all the way back to Paris then the Russian's would probably have carried on chasing them.
It would have made for a very very interesting cold war.
If Germany had managed to defend on the beaches against an invasion or D-Day never proceeded, and lets say they managed to get some of the jets in production and didnt have the problems or ironed them out in the He 162, or its up and coming jet came on the scene (Ta 183) then the daylight bombing would be out and its possible these aircraft may have been used as high speed reconnaissance and strike aircraft (possibly using the earliest guided bombs) to take out specific targets like fuel dumps, rendering the large numbers of allied aircraft less useable.
In all honesty at the end of the war I think this was unlikely, but had a certain few military and planning and develepment decisions been carried out differently earlier, like the Me 262 and the TA 183 (and certain weapons) its possible the war may never have taken a turn towards the allies. Its possible when the bombing campaign began that it was obliterated from the start by an already present jet interceptor force. In that regard, German industry might not have been so affected and The Soviets would have been left to face the almost undivided attention of Germany's land forces.
Plenty of what ifs there, in that regard we are lucky, as Germany was the primary enemy, who knows what Ace the USAAC might have delivered to stop an un-defeatable enemy.0 -
Was never going to happen.
Germany was in a complete Catch 22 by the Spring of 1944. To defend against the bombing offensive they pulled in air defence resources from all over - leaving the Eastern Front and Italy stripped of air defence and tactical air support.
That also allowed the Allies to achieve local air superiority in and around Northern France which meant it would have been incredible difficult for the Wehrmacht to concentrate, manoeuver and attack with sufficient mass to throw the Allies back - if the Germans switched to providing air support to their ground forces they'd have left the country wide open to even heavier air bombardment.
Also, you can have all the jets in the world, but if, like the Luftwaffe, you haven't got the fuel to sustain a full training programme you won't have the pilots to fly them.
If D-Day had not happened or happened and failed the only difference would have been a longer war and a much greater swathe of Europe falling under Soviet / Communist influence.
Stalin kept a rein on the French Communist party, but there was a contingency to encourage them to be more active in the event the Allies failed, which would have meant no deGaulle and probably a much different EU!
It's also possible that a failed D-Day would have led the Americans to 'abandoning' Europe to concentrate on the Pacific.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »Russia's problem was that it was losing twice or three times the number of men Germany was. If D-Day hadn't have happened, Germany would have had more resources on the eastern front and Russia's losses would have been even higher.
I'm not saying the outcome would have changed in the slightest, but it would have taken Russia a lot longer to reach Berlin and if the German's had of retreated all the way back to Paris then the Russian's would probably have carried on chasing them.
It would have made for a very very interesting cold war.
Russia's losses would have been greater but even still, Germany didn't have the resources to compete against the might of America0 -
Was never going to happen.
Germany was in a complete Catch 22 by the Spring of 1944. To defend against the bombing offensive they pulled in air defence resources from all over - leaving the Eastern Front and Italy stripped of air defence and tactical air support.
That also allowed the Allies to achieve local air superiority in and around Northern France which meant it would have been incredible difficult for the Wehrmacht to concentrate, manoeuver and attack with sufficient mass to throw the Allies back - if the Germans switched to providing air support to their ground forces they'd have left the country wide open to even heavier air bombardment.
Also, you can have all the jets in the world, but if, like the Luftwaffe, you haven't got the fuel to sustain a full training programme you won't have the pilots to fly them.
If D-Day had not happened or happened and failed the only difference would have been a longer war and a much greater swathe of Europe falling under Soviet / Communist influence.
Stalin kept a rein on the French Communist party, but there was a contingency to encourage them to be more active in the event the Allies failed, which would have meant no deGaulle and probably a much different EU!
It's also possible that a failed D-Day would have led the Americans to 'abandoning' Europe to concentrate on the Pacific.
I was suggesting if they had done a number of things differently in the lead up to that time, they would have been on a stronger footing.
Like develop jet power earlier, which they started doing and then put on the back burner (so to speak).
I think the French Resistance really wasn't as effective as it's thought, and I think in desperate times, the German units really might have ended up slaughtering them and more french citizens wholesale had they upped their activities, so much that the French may have turned against the resistance, many seemingly being pro German.
It might well have led to the USAAC dropping an A-bomb on Berlinfrom a B-29 or maybe even a B-36 (from 1946), partly to hammer the Nazis and partly to draw a line in the sand for the Soviets.0 -
Was never going to happen.
Also, you can have all the jets in the world, but if, like the Luftwaffe, you haven't got the fuel to sustain a full training programme you won't have the pilots to fly them.
An interesting theory would have been what if Germany invaded the Middle East rather than going East towards Russia (putting ideology aside).
A foothold there would have provided huge fuel supplies, something Germany failed to get at the Urals.0 -
Also remember that the US gave the Russia vast amounts of aid in WWII aswell.0
-
I was suggesting if they had done a number of things differently in the lead up to that time, they would have been on a stronger footing.
Like develop jet power earlier, which they started doing and then put on the back burner (so to speak).
I think the French Resistance really wasn't as effective as it's thought, and I think in desperate times, the German units really might have ended up slaughtering them and more french citizens wholesale had they upped their activities, so much that the French may have turned against the resistance, many seemingly being pro German.
It might well have led to the USAAC dropping an A-bomb on Berlinfrom a B-29 or maybe even a B-36 (from 1946), partly to hammer the Nazis and partly to draw a line in the sand for the Soviets.An interesting theory would have been what if Germany invaded the Middle East rather than going East towards Russia (putting ideology aside).
A foothold there would have provided huge fuel supplies, something Germany failed to get at the Urals.
Germany were pretty much doomed from the moment they launched Barbarossa - again it was a strategic catch 22 for them. The only way Barbarossa would have worked is if they had gone balls out for Moscow, the political and social centre of gravity the USSR - but to do that they needed to secure their fuel supplies which meant going for the southern oilfields, which meant they couldn't go for Moscow with the strength needed.
And even if they had gone all out for Moscow there is no way they could have logistically supported the operation as their supply lines would have been wildly over-stretched with extended flanks.
And even if they could provide the rear area security to support a drive on Moscow they lacked the mechanised capacity to get their quickly with enough force to take the city.
Similarly, an operation through the Middle East was logistically impossible.
The Germans' (for that read Hitler's) grand strategy was fatally flawed from the outset and their ability to make war exceeded hugely their economic capacity.........they could make war and win battles, but they couldn't campaign!0 -
Germany were pretty much doomed from the moment they launched Barbarossa - again it was a strategic catch 22 for them. The only way Barbarossa would have worked is if they had gone balls out for Moscow, the political and social centre of gravity the USSR - but to do that they needed to secure their fuel supplies which meant going for the southern oilfields, which meant they couldn't go for Moscow with the strength needed.
And even if they had gone all out for Moscow there is no way they could have logistically supported the operation as their supply lines would have been wildly over-stretched with extended flanks.
And even if they could provide the rear area security to support a drive on Moscow they lacked the mechanised capacity to get their quickly with enough force to take the city.
Similarly, an operation through the Middle East was logistically impossible.
The Germans' (for that read Hitler's) grand strategy was fatally flawed from the outset and their ability to make war exceeded hugely their economic capacity.........they could make war and win battles, but they couldn't campaign!
That above sums it up really
I think the Germans could have beaten the british on their own in north africa, gone to the middle east as far ascentral Persia/the borders of India.
It would have been possible to contain the Soviet union with a smaller army just defending the narrowest possible or militarily most practical front, especially if they maintained the possibility of invading the caucuses from the south but never actually doing that.
Not declaring war on the US would have helped too, especially if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour or had agreements with Germany.
In reality Japanese ships patrolled the pacific for german raiders in WW1 and they had an alliance with the British after WW1. Not maintaining that was a lost effort.
Roosevelt and Churchill wanted an excuse to get the US into the war, I think partly because if the Axis had gained and held too much ground and were militarily too strong, it might not have been possible to beat them (similar scenario to post war really, just different nations, neither side can win outright).0 -
It would have been possible to contain the Soviet union with a smaller army just defending the narrowest possible or militarily most practical front, especially if they maintained the possibility of invading the caucuses from the south but never actually doing that.
Not declaring war on the US would have helped too, especially if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour or had agreements with Germany.
In reality Japanese ships patrolled the pacific for german raiders in WW1 and they had an alliance with the British after WW1. Not maintaining that was a lost effort.
Roosevelt and Churchill wanted an excuse to get the US into the war, I think partly because if the Axis had gained and held too much ground and were militarily too strong, it might not have been possible to beat them (similar scenario to post war really, just different nations, neither side can win outright).
Even if japan hadn't attacked Pearl harbour, the US may have eventually fot involved if Japan had kept encroaching on US interests in the Pacific region. Pearl Harbour gave all the justifcation needed and got public opinion fully on side0 -
Even if japan hadn't attacked Pearl harbour, the US may have eventually fot involved if Japan had kept encroaching on US interests in the Pacific region. Pearl Harbour gave all the justifcation needed and got public opinion fully on side
If Japan had kept on encroaching on what US interests were in the Pacific do you mean they would have found some reason to go to war?, I think probably so myself.
But if Japan stayed away from the US/US interests, lets say stopped at Malay Peninsula or even the Dutch east Indies, possibly even excluding New guinea to stay away from Australia and got their oil from German supplies in the middle east, with the US public staunchly against war and firmly on the side of isolationism.0
Advertisement